Questioning the narrative
19th March 2020, the UK government declared that Covid-19 was no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease, subsequently downgrading it to the equivalent of a seasonal flu
The government then went on to declare that the country was in a pandemic and placed the whole country under a nationwide house arrest calling it "Lockdown" which was initially for 3 weeks to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed...
“I’m not scared of dying, I’m scared of not living.”
One year later, and we are still living under the most draconian measures and restrictions ever imposed on a supposedly free and democratic country
When will it end?
Perhaps the 'year of global opportunities' Chris Whitty was predicting in an interview with Civil Service World in 2020 related to his involvement with Global Health Group, a self-proclaimed specialist supplier of covid-19 medical supplies.
Maybe he was one of their well-placed 'influencers' in the industry, as their website describes how they provide access to 'leading experts' that build bridges between 'top tier buyers, sellers and investors'.
Matt Hancock also had the same entrepreneurial mindset when he was gifted 15% shares in his sister's document-shredding business, Topwood Limited.
This family-owned company, which gained NHS approved status in 2019, recently benefited from £300,000 worth of business from NHS Wales. The company, with assets valued at near £2 million, also claimed up to £20,000 in Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme grants.
Mr Hancock and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) were also scrutinised for their NHS procurement strategy during the pandemic.
A High Court judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, ruled the former health secretary's actions unlawful.
This is largely due to failings in publishing the vast majority of £15 billion worth of PPE and services within a 30-day period.
This misuse of public money was highlighted by the procurement consultancy Tussell and challenged in court by the Good Law Project, a not-for-profit organisation bringing legal challenges that show transparency laws are being broken by the government.
Not wanting to be alone in the cronyism, Hancock repeatedly and publicly backed a company for which Dominic Cummings undertook a consultancy role in 2018. Boris Johnson's chief advisor during the pandemic faced conflict of interest accusations over this role for Babylon Health, a government-endorsed healthcare business that introduced the controversial GP at Hand app.
Cummings advised Babylon Health on its communications strategy and its senior recruitment, an investigation by The Guardian and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed.
Nadim Zahawi, secretary of state for education, has also sparked controversy with his family links to Warren Health Limited. Although the company never traded, it led to conflict-of-interest questions from the Stratford Herald.
The paper argued that the inclusion of the word 'medical' in the new company's name sounded inappropriate, given Mr Zahawi's position at the time, as vaccine minister.
The Department for Health and Social Care responded to questions by the Stratford Herald with an unequivocal 'no conflict of interest statement.
However, how much scrutiny has been placed on Zahawi's other business interests?
His wife and twin sons are directors in companies Zahawi & Zahawi Ltd - with assets of €54 million according to confirmation statements, as well as Zahawi Properties Ltd, Zahawi Brierley Ltd and Zahawi Wantage Ltd.
Perhaps Sir Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP for Worthing West and Father of the House of Commons, was right when he described MPs pay as 'really grim'? Which could explain their need to look for extra income.
After all, the annual adjustment to MPs' basic pay for 2020-21 was only increased by 3.1%, as recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, bringing the overall salary from £79,468 to £81,932, from April last year.
Chief medical officer, Professor Whitty earns more, at between £205,000 and £210,000, judging by NHS figures published last year.
Former chief adviser Mr Cummings was paid £140,000-£144,999 - up from £95,000-£99,999 the previous year. A cabinet office report revealed the adviser was given a pay rise of around 40% from 2019 to 2020.
MPs can also claim expenses such as travel, office, food, drink and accommodation.
MPs are in the top 5% of earners in the UK when it comes to annual income, judging by HMRC taxpayer data from 2016-17.
This does not even take into account their overall wealth, such as fixed assets and business interests.
When you take into account the national average UK wage of around £30,000, and nurses, on an average of £26,000 per year, according to payscale.com, it is hard to believe assertions of poverty from any member of parliament.
Despite the wealth that ministers and their families have amassed, there are no shortages of reports of conflicts of interest during the pandemic, such as UK chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance having £600,000 of shares in vaccine maker Glaxosmithkline.
There are likely to be many more examples of public office being used for private gain.
The apparent prevalence of conflict of interests is alarming.
Intriguingly, it is mostly happening in plain sight, right under the taxpayers' noses.
A cursory amount of research on HMRC or the government's own conflicts of interest reports shows that there is still a deep, underlying issue of cronyism. Yet when politicians are quizzed about their seemingly controversial business interests, there are usually all-too-familiar party lines - there is no conflict of interest, and 'no laws were broken'.
Which is probably true, which can mean only one thing - the law itself is broken.
There is also theoretical transparency in UK politics to stop this kind of cronyism of the past.
That is why we have the National Audit Office, conflict of interest declarations, transparency policy, and above all else, we have parliament.
Parliament's job, in their own words, is to scrutinise government so that any decision they make is fair, open, transparent, workable and non- discriminatory.
It would appear that parliament has spectacularly failed. The inevitable result of decades of endemic corruption is widespread mediocrity.
Whether any person or company should make a profit from the pandemic is an ethical question.
When so many sacrifices were made by the people, giving up freedoms, giving up socialising, wearing masks, getting injected, losing their livelihoods, it does not seem right for someone to make a monetary profit upon that situation.
One question that needs immediate addressing is: should anyone connected to government be able to profit in any way from the pandemic?
When people profit from a crisis their morals are questionable.
This is usually associated with wartime profiteering.
Henry Ford once said 'Show me who makes a profit from war, and I'll show you how to stop the war'.
Replace 'war' with 'pandemic' and we may be seeing history repeat itself.
Heath, profit or control?
